The student campaign group Glasgow Against Arms and Fossil Fuels (GAAF) have said that they have been “left with no option but to take part in further direct action”. This comes from a post on Instagram in which they accused the Senior Management of the University of “vile behaviour” and having “a lack of morals”.
This news comes after the University warned the student activist group that they risk “suspension of studies” in response to taking part in direct action.
The post, uploaded yesterday evening, declared the activist group’s intention to “pull out of all negotiations with Senior Management”. It went on to say: “after months of disappointing meetings, broken agreements, lack of transparency and delay tactics, it is clear that the Senior Management and Court Office of the University of Glasgow are not conducting the student consultation process in good faith.”
This comes one month after the University made an appeal for students and staff to provide their views regarding the University’s draft Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) policy. The consultation offers students and staff the opportunity to suggest any classes of investment that the University should exclude from their portfolio.
GAAF have been campaigning for an end to the University’s investments in arms companies, as well as other aims such as paying to help rebuild the Islamic University of Gaza and revising University curricula.
In January, the group occupied George Service House at 11 University Gardens for over two weeks in pursuit of these demands, before being evicted by the University.
GAAF’s demands now include embedding within the University’s SRI policy a requirement to exclude investment in companies which generate more than 10 percent of their profits from arms sales. Their Instagram post went on to say: “If Senior Management was serious about consulting students, they would call for a referendum (as proposed by us during initial meetings) and provide transparent & meaningful ways the student consultations would be brought directly to the Court Office by student representatives.”
In a recent interview, Chief Operating Officer of the University, David Duncan said: “[In order to divest from arms companies] you do have to give clear instructions to fund managers…and that has to be done on the basis of policy by the court and then other things may flow from that.”
He also compared the possibility of divestment from arms to the University’s decision to divest from fossil fuels in 2014, saying: “I don’t imagine that if court decides to divest in arms that it will take that long because the holdings in the defence sector are much smaller.”
The process of divestment from Fossil Fuels took nearly a decade, and was fully completed in January of this year.
Leave a Reply to Madge Chevas Cancel reply